Look back at McNamara and Vietnam

McNamara's death brings to the forefront the legacy our involvement in Vietnam. The issue is especially relevant considering the debate over what we should do in Afghanistan today. Check out this Washington Post oped.

There has been a lot written about the mistakes we made in Vietnam. Those don't need to be rehashed here, but it is heartening to note how different the debate is. Talking to people who were alive then, they note that there was much less knowledge and debate about potential strategies for dealing with the situation. All of the debate was about whether we should stay or not. Today, there is a lot of constructive debate about Afghanistan and ways to deal with it.

The other important thing to consider about McNamara's legacy is his later stated belief that the war was unwinnable but he still continued to send troops there. I could never accept anyone doing something like that. You are putting other men and women in harms way because of a lack of political courage.

The same issue arises for Afghanistan. The Administrations plan for dealing with it is-on the whole-nothing too new but it is a good plan and gives me courage that the administration believes they can succeed and is sending us there for good reason. I have heard some talk of reducing our objective in Afghanistan to more just kill capture to take out senior Al-Qaeda leadership so that there can be some plausible success. It would be a huge mistake to do so, because it would not solve the problem and would only strengthen the hardcore Islamic militant leadership of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This solution is mostly political in my mind, and would be akin to McNamara's sending soldiers to Vietnam even when he knew the war was unwinnable for political reasons. For me, if I am standing in front of my men in a year explaining to them why I am dragging them across the world away from their loved one to possibly die, I want to have confidence it is for the right reasons.

Nature vs. Nurture, COIN-style!

Just finished reading The Village. Great story with useful and interesting details on small unit COIN. The CAP seemed to have very successfully countered the Viet Cong's efforts to control Binh Nghia and use it to logistically support their efforts in the greater area.
But there was a very interesting paragraph--almost a throw-away paragraph--about half-way through the book:

Luong offered a partial explanation for Binh Nghia's lukewarm attitude towards the Viet Cong. The local Communist movement, he said, had originated across the river in the Phu Longs, and hostility between the Phu Longs and Binh Nghia was generations old, focused on a feud over fishing rights.

The first thing I thought of was the parallel to Malaya. Similar to Binh Nghia, the ethnic Malay population had never been very close with the ethnic Chinese insurgents. In terms of animosity, it was more ethnic Chinese towards ethnic Malays (as opposed to mutual) because of British preferential treatment for the Malays, but nonetheless, the Malay majority had little reason to support the Chinese insurgents.
What does this say about our ability to succeed in COIN? Is the fundamental "nature" (pun intended) of the conflict the deciding factor? Are we as counterinsurgents largely at the mercy of the circumstances we are thrust into? In short, can we only succeed when the deck is stacked in our favor?

If it is possible to "nurture" a dislike of the insurgents in the population, then the example of Binh Nghia is a reminder of the famous Tip O'Neil quote, "All politics is local." We can also put another check in Dave Kilcullen's column. As he argued in his 2005 article, "Countering Global Insurgency," disaggregating insurgents is our best hope for success. The case of Binh Nghia seems to suggest that disaggregation is possible and effective even on the micro level.
Let's just hope it's not a question of nature after all.